John Cole of Balloon Juice is, shall we say, rather unimpressed with the latest application of the PATRIOT Act: gathering evidence against the owner of a Las Vegas titty bar in a political corruption probe, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Read their oped too, while you’re at it. There’s more at Rick Henderson’s blog.

Kate isn’t happy either.

Lee Corso writes the following at ESPN.com in his “Lee-mail” column about the Rebels’ upcoming game with Auburn:

How do you see this weekend’s SEC West matchup between Auburn and Ole Miss?—Mike, Phoenix, Ari.

The biggest question is whether Mississippi can stop the Auburn running game. The Rebels are near the bottom of the SEC in rushing defense while the Tigers have shown they can run against anyone when they’re hot. Throw in quarterback Jason Campbell hitting some play action and Auburn can be dangerous. But Eli Manning and the Ole Miss offense can put up some numbers, too, but this will be the toughest test Mississippi encounters for the remainder of the year. [emphasis added]

Only one problem with this statement: the Rebels are #13 in the country and #3 in the SEC in rushing defense, conceding just 90.1 ypg on the ground. (Auburn is #14/#4, giving up 92.0 ypg rushing.) They can stop the run. The area where the Rebels are inconsistent—and vulnerable—is in pass defense (#115 nationally and dead last in the SEC, with 307.9 ypg), particularly against the “deep ball,” which Texas Tech and Memphis successfully exploited in their wins and which helped South Carolina back into the game this past weekend.

I agree that if Campbell can pull off the play action pass, Auburn probably has a good shot. But Campbell is a woefully inconsistent passer (4 TDs and 8 INTs on the season) who could easily get burned if he tries to go with the deep ball—ask Chris Leak, who threw 3 INTs to the Rebel secondary in Gainesville; this will require Carnell Williams and Auburn’s Brandon Jacobs (not to be confused with Ole Miss’ Brandon Jacobs, who plays the same position) to both be effective on the run and to catch short passes from Campbell. I’d expect them to have some success on the ground—I’ll be surprised if the Rebels can keep Auburn under 150 yards rushing, excluding sacks—but I don’t see Campbell passing for big numbers (the numbers he will put up will be largely due to yards after the catch) and I expect him to take at least a couple of sacks and to throw a costly pick.

On the other side of the ball, though, the only people who can beat the Rebels’ offense are themselves. The South Carolina game could—and should—have been 44-14 at halftime, if not for two silly turnovers in the red zone, and the Rebels have essentially been able to execute at-will against every defense they’ve faced this year except in the season opener at Vanderbilt and at Florida.

I also think that, overall, LSU is a tougher test for the Rebels: they have a more effective passer, better balance overall, and a smarter coach. However, the Rebs will be at home facing LSU and coming off an off-week, so arguably the difficulty level of the challenges balances out.

My sketch of a prediction for Saturday is that Ole Miss wins a nailbiter, probably with a score in the 27-21 range.

Also on Corso’s page, I’m inclined to agree that if Florida beats FSU, they should probably get the SEC East bid (if there’s a tiebreaker). My guess though is that the ADs will vote for the team with the highest poll ranking, unless there’s a convoluted scenario that permits the conference to secure a second bid to a BCS bowl.

I’m not a huge fan these days of the Nolan chart and similar quiz-based ideology measures; however, Tim Lambert has been compiling bloggers’ results on the Political Compass test. As he points out, it’s hardly a scientific sample of bloggers, so take it with a grain of salt.

An interesting outstanding question is whether the Compass is a particularly valid measure of ideology. Their FAQ seems to preclude any independent test of this proposition, as they claim copyright on the items—and I believe that such a copyight is valid, given the widespread use of copyrighted scale questions in psychometry.

I wonder if my committee will accept this Jay Manifold post in lieu of the conclusions chapter of my dissertation. After all, it basically says what I want to say, although far more succinctly and without the obligatory citations to seventeen billion political scientists. Quoth Jay:

The Scrappleface material aside, I rise to the defense of my fellow citizens on this one. Like many other polls, it can be made to look very bad. The lessons we should be drawing, however, are not the usual people-are-stupid, everybody-should-have-to-know-this-stuff sort of thing, but are more related to simple common sense:

1. Suppose the poll had instead taken the form of a true/false test with a list of, say, 40 possible names of Cabinet departments. How different would the results have been? I’m sure that only a small percentage would have gotten them all correct; but I surmise that most respondents would have gotten most of them right, a far different result than the one presented.
2. Also, I like to apply the body-count test. Are we stepping over bodies in the streets every morning as a result of [insert failing of American public here]? No? Then maybe, just maybe, it’s not a big deal.
3. According to the poll, if you can name more than 11 Cabinet departments, you are in a minority of 1%; if you can name them all, you’re probably a solid 3σ away from the statistical mean. In other words, you are a weirdo.
4. In fact, if you’re complaining about public ignorance about almost any political data, while demonstrating your familiarity with such data, you’re not only a weirdo, you’re a control freak whose idea of a healthier polity is one with a whole bunch of weird little copies of you in it.

Needless to say, the above describes almost all current-events bloggers.

Or, as I put it in the current iteration of my draft conclusions chapter:

It is also possible that what matters isn’t what voters know about politics, but rather what they understand about politics. Knowledge may simply be a byproduct of understanding among those citizens most exposed to political information; in other words, knowledge is only important to the extent that higher levels of knowledge about politics—as measured by, for example, answers to the notorious “trivia questions” about politics that are regularly used as evidence that the public has insufficient levels of civic education—generally reflect greater understanding of politics. If that is the case, civic education efforts may improve voters’ reasoning processes even if they don’t lead to greater retention of the minutiae of politics by citizens over the long term.

I resisted the urge, however, to accuse Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter of wanting to build clone armies of themselves.

As Steven Taylor notes, GOP candidate Ernie Fletcher has won Kentucky’s open gubernatorial seat, and Haley Barbour has a fairly robust lead in Mississippi—so robust, in fact, that Barbour made a victory speech just after midnight, despite the slim remaining chance that he will not receive the absolute majority of the vote required to avoid the legislature deciding the election (as they did in Ronnie Musgrove’s victory over Mike Parker in 1999).

John Cole credits the successes of Fletcher and Barbour to DNC head Terry MacAuliffe. However, I’d probably chalk it up to something more fundamental: in the mass media and Internet age, the Democratic and Republican parties have become increasingly nationalized, with little scope for state parties to tack too far from the national party’s position. Even in Mississippi, a state where “yellow dog Democrats” have had a lot of sway, that’s slowly fading as Democrats retire or change parties. Take, for example, one political scientist’s observations on the election*:

John Bruce, a political science professor at the University of Mississippi, said though Musgrove and Barbour ran a tough campaign with ads criticizing each other, the two candidates took similar positions on many issues.

Bruce said he took statements about gun ownership, abortion and other issues off campaign Web sites and quizzed his students about which candidate had made the statements. He said many thought the statements came from Barbour — but all the positions came from Musgrove.

“They’re both conservative,” Bruce said. “They’re almost identical on a lot of issues.”

And “almost identical” southern Democrats are increasingly finding that southern voters will choose the real thing—Republicans—over conservative Democrats who increasingly have to rely on the support of groups—like African-Americans, state employees, and transplanted Northern liberals—who aren’t conservative at all.

That isn’t to say that parties can’t field successful candidates in states where their national ideology isn’t competitive—the most obvious case in point would be the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. But they’re going to be in an uphill struggle, without the ability to bring in “name” fellow partisans to support them, and they’re going to need to work much harder than they’d have had to in the past to convince local voters that they are truly “independent” of the national party. Ronnie Musgrove couldn’t do either, and ultimately that is what cost him this election.

PhotoDude has more on this theme, tying it into the whole Dean flag flap (via InstaPundit), and Stephen Green notes the GOP surge, but encourages Republicans not to get cocky.